JOURNAL OF HOBTICULTtJRE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. [ December 80. 1889. 



that the latter is not so. A fee is a stipnlated payment of some kind or 

 another for work performed, the fnlfilment of vhich the labourer can 

 enforce by law if his work bus been properly done. Bnt the competi- 

 tion for ft prize implies no finch eugagemeut, neither can the com- 

 petitor enforce tbo award of the prize to himttelf, even if he may hare 

 fulfilled the conditions attached to tbo prize which baa gone to one 

 less deserving. Withont a wa^e and the condition of service insepar- 

 able from it, where is the hire V And without the hire, what becomes 

 of the alleged hireling ? If ail men were honest, it woald matter bat 

 little what position they hold ; but as it is not so, there ought to be no 

 vantage ground in competition, even if those having it wUl not con- 

 descend to use it. But if committeemen will cluim that vantage 

 groimd amongst exhibitors in consideration of their services and ex- 

 penditure, then they hire themselves to exhibitors for the inadequate 

 wage, I grant, of tbo chance of obtaining prizes ; and so, many become 

 hirelings in the strict sense of the word, which the outside exhibitor 

 can never be, even if he have tho spirit of a hireling. Exhibitors 

 unconnected with the official parts of shows are not more honourablo 

 than those connected with them. But this is no argument against ray 

 view. Opportunity may soon oifor itself for strictures upon them 

 (jnite as strong as those I have directed towards exhibiting committee- 

 men. 



**An iRit^H Committeeman" gays, *' If a committeeman in his 

 capacity of unpaid oflicial were precluded from exhibiting, he would 

 have but two alternatives — namely, either to lose in a great measure 

 the pleasure he has in producing good birds, or to resign his position 

 as committeman." Surely tho " Irish Committeeman- " must mean 

 that the committeeman has only one alternative, which offers the 

 choice of two things, one of which only he can take as an alternative. 

 Bnt let that pass. I would not have noticed it had not the " Ikish 

 Committeeman's " letter assumed that he was settling the whole 

 matter. My answer to his dilemma is this, that if the committeeman 

 had no other show open to him he might have some appearance of 

 reason in his complaint ; but as this is not the case, he has not any 

 sufficient reason for losing the pleasure of producing good birds. As 

 well might a man say that he lost pleasure in bringing up his children, 

 because he mi<:ht not live to see the result. If, on the other hand, he 

 covets the distinctions which a local show vrHl afford, then I can see 

 no hardship in his ceasing to hold an office which is arduous and ex- 

 pensive, and, I fear, often thankless. As to the likelihood of shows 

 decreasing if committeemen ceased to compete for prizes, it must be 

 remembered that the numbers of committeemen who compete for 

 prizes is a very small minority, and that in proportion as shows in- 

 crease it will become smaller, because the increase wUl afford com- 

 mitteemen gieater opportunities of exhibiting their birds. 



It only remains for me to remove an objection which has been urged 

 by several of your correspondents who differ from me. It is stated 

 that I cast a slur on tho characters of committeemen and judges. Let 

 me state most distinctly, that collectively I look upon both as pains- 

 taking, liberal, and honourable men, to whom exhibitors are much in- 

 debted. It is as absurd to say that I cast any slur upon the characters 

 of committeemen and judges, as it would be to say that the recent 

 reforms in the law by which clients are benefited are an insult to the 

 reputation of lawyers. 



Mr. Wright thinks that I felt the force of " An Old CosoriTTEE- 

 ^iAN's " supposed cases, and he puts them anew and in more definite 

 torms. He sopposes that at Birmingham Mr. Mapplebeck's and Mr. 

 Tomlinson's Buff Cochins had been debarred from competition, Mr. 

 Lane's Spanish at Bristol, and so on ; and he concludes that an in- 

 ferior standard of beauty will be held up for imitation. I certainly 

 did not feel the force of these suppositious when they were first put, 

 and I do not now, even when they are re-stated in more definite termp. 

 The only inference I can see is, that those exhibitors who are un- 

 known, and to a certain extent untried, would fear to venture against 

 such tried competitors ; and that, particularly in neighbourhoods 

 where there is but one great breeder of any distinct variety, the 

 standard would thus bo lowered instead of being raised. When the 

 race is easy the racer is apt to become careless, hence the great ad- 

 vantage of increasing the nnmber of shows, and particularly large 

 ones, such as Birmingham, Manchester, the Crystal Palace, i'c, 

 where local giants are not, by reason of their fame and strength, 

 likely to have it all their own way. 



Mr. Wright, speaking of the probability that if committeemen were 

 excluded from competition they would resign their office, says — " I re- 

 peatedly notice that in most cases the withdrawal of a name from the 

 ranks of exhibitors is followed by retirementa from committees also," 

 a^d he cites a case at Bristol tliis year. But this has nothing to do 

 with the subject. It will not do to illustrate local cases by general 

 instances. A committeeman is asked that he should not compete at bis 

 own local show, but is left free to do as be likes at all others. This 

 is not excluding him from general competition, or causing him to 

 cease to be an exhibitor ; therefore, the inference which Mr. Wright 

 would draw falls to the ground as applied to local exhibitors. 



Have good judge?, says Mr. Wright, and we shall have good awards. 

 Of the two geiitltmeu he mentions, Messrs. Hewitt and Tttbay, I 

 will venture to say that they are not only good judges, bnt good, honest 

 men. Speaking of them as judges, how could Mr. Wright be led to 

 remark upon " the readiness of these gentlemen to oblige where they 

 ean?' There is, necessarily, so intimate a connection between the 

 judges and the working committeemen, freqnentlya pleasant and sociel 



intercoarse on the evening preceding the shoir — which I would net* 

 however, see broken np — that the ittrongest and most Spartan wiU 

 might bo led to look with favour on birds, concerning which few exhi- 

 bitors, however houeat, would be capable of holding their tongucft in a 

 general chat on those sabjecta uppermost in their minds. This is 

 coming to tho root of the objection to competing committeemen. 

 There ought not to bo any opportunity to oblige. The verj- dispoti- 

 tion to oblige is dangerous. In thia sense Mea«rs. Hewitt and Teebay 

 arc. I have, no doubt, most disobliging. But it requires a very stem 

 will aid clear brain to keep out of the difficulty. Cages of liositive 

 fraud are, I hope, few and far between. It is admitted, however, on 

 all hands that they do exist, not only in committeemen, bnt also in 

 judges and exhibitors. Whatever removes the opportunity is most to 

 be desired. At present I touch only one of the above classe.'^, but I 

 seek to remove the opportunity which exists there. Public judging 

 will not do it. That would only increase the difficulty of getting 

 through the already too arduous work which judges have ; but private 

 judging should be private, and no committeeman ahould, under any 

 circumstances, accompany the judge or judges during their examina- 

 tion of the pens, and, above all, a competing committeeman. 



Jlr. Wright's suggestion for a set form of words charging committee- 

 men and judges with unfair practices where these are supposed to exist, 

 " simuly to state tho facts," as he calls it, must have been written 

 in a harry. In the first place, who is to make the charge ? Who 

 is to decide that the person making the statement is not ignorantly 

 wrong or knowingly malicious ? What is there in the f'lrf that exhi- 

 bitor A conversed with judge B which can be taken as evidence ? And 

 can the statement concerning prizes, " evidently not deserving them," 

 be called a fact ? 



I will make a propofdtion to meet the case. It is this — Let com- 

 mitteemen exhibit at their own gbows free of all ex{.ense, their pens 

 being marked, " Not for competition. ' All that is contended for and 

 required by your correspondents will then be obtained. A standard of 

 excellence or beauty will be kept up. The exhibiting committeeman 

 will have a pride in displaying his birds before those persons who will 

 know verj' well whether they are better or worse than the prize birds. 

 Exhibitors would appear before him who never would have appeared 

 against him, and both might be benefited by the opportunities of com- 

 parison. Except in direct and secret fraud, over which the judge has 

 an entire control, there could not be any nnfairaess in the awards. 

 Committeemen would be beyond suspicion, and judges beyond the 

 opportunity of '"obliging." 



It will require stronger arguments and more able advocates than 

 have yet appeared to cause me to alter my convictions on the subject 

 of competing committeemen, yet to those who hare appeared against 

 me let me hold out the hand and wish them in all sincerity a merry 

 Christmas and a happy New Year. — Egomet. 



[We think this controversy may now close. — Eds.] 



DURHAM POULTRY SHOW. 



The following are the awards made at this Show, held on the 21st 

 and 2*2nd inst. ; — 



Dorkings.— 1, J. White, Warlaby, Northallerton. 2. W. Bearpark, 

 Ainderby, Northallerton. Chfckens.—l, J. Shorthose, Newcastle. 2, J. 

 White. 



Cochins (Cinnamon and Buff).— 1, G. H. Procter, Durham. 2, J. Short- 

 hose. ChickenM.—l. G. H. Procter. 2, J. Shorthose. 



Cochins (Anv other varietv).— 1 and 2, G. H. Procter. 



Spanish.— 1,'H. Wilkinson, Earby. Skipton. 2, W. Elliott, Bishop Aack- 

 land. ChickenK.—l, A. WHkinson. 2, W. Watson, jun., Darlington. 



Brahma Pootkas.— 1, W. J. Robson, Newcastle. 2, R. Moore, Hetton- 

 le-Hole. Chicke)f<.—1, J. Shortho«te. 2. L. H. Ricketts. Banwell. 



Game (Black-breasted and other Reds).— 1, BugUss 4 NVilliftmsou, Carr- 

 ville. 2, T. Home, Tow Law, Chick^iv.—l, J. Watson, Knaresborough. 

 2, J. Wilson, Whitworth Woodhouse, Spennymoor. 



Game (Any other varietyj.— 1, J. Gibson, Stanhope. 2. J. H.Dawes, 

 Birmingham. 



Hambdeghs (Golden-spaneled).- 1. W. Bearpark, Ainderby, Northaller- 

 ton. 2, T. Mitchel. Mount Pleasant, Crook. 



HAMBrnoHS (Silver-spangled).—!, C. Armstrong, Bedlingtcn. 2, G. 

 Stalker, West Sleekbiirn. Morpeth. 



Hambcrghs (Golden pencLUedj.—!, W. Bearpark. 2, W. Hall, Sleek- 

 burn. 



Hambceghs (Silver-pencilled).— 1,R. Parson, Morpeth. 2, T. H. Read- 

 man, Whitby. 



PoLANDs (Any variety}.— 1 and 2, G.H.Boolhby, Louth. Chichcr: ..—I, C. 

 Walker, Boroughbridge. 2, G. H. Bootbbv. 



Game Bantams (Any variety).— 1, BeUingham A Gill, BuruUy. 2, W. 

 Dixon, Sunderland. 



Bantams {Anv other vpriety except Game).— 1, G. Atkinaon, Croft 

 Station. 2, W. U. Tomlinson, Newark. 



DccKS (Aylesbury).—!, W. Stonebouse, Whitby. 2, S. H. Stolt, Roch- 

 dale. 



DrcKS (Any other rariety).— 1, E. J. Jones, Patten, near Whitehaven. 

 2, S. H. Stott. 



Selling Class (Any breed).— 1, G. H. Procter. 2, T. Powell, Knares- 

 borongh. 



TcBKETs (Any variety).- 1, Mrs. Tumbnll. 2, Mrs. Minto, Hetton-ie- 

 Hole. 



PIGEONS. 



TrMBLEHS (Almond).— 1 and Medal, J. Fielding, jun., Rochdale. 2, F. 

 Grab am. Birkenhead. 



TcMBLERS (Any colour).—!, J. Fielding, Rochdale. 2,F. Graham. 



Carbibrs.— Cocfrj.— 1 and 2, E. Homer, Harcwood, Leeds. H«nu-- 

 1, E. Horner. 2, W. Massey, Spalding. 



